High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Piyush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Ganesh Prasad, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 120 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2), 351(3) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Katera, District Jhansi.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 06.12.2024 by Dayaram Napit against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Priyanka was solemnized with Rakesh on 01.05.2019 in which he had given Rs. 3 lakh cash, a motorcycle, gold jewellery but after marriage her husband Rakesh told her that they had demanded Rs. 5 lakh as dowry but her family members did not give it and gave less dowry and used to torture and assault her. They were counselled many times through people of the society. His daughter was thrown out of the house but after counselling she was sent again but her husband again started demanding dowry and used to assault her and there was a demand of a car, gold chain and Rs. 2 lakh as dowry. On 15.10.2024 they assaulted Priyanka mercilessly and hit her on the head with a rod due to which she became unconscious and was brought to Jhansi. They then informed him that his daughter fell from the roof after which he went to the Trauma Centre and found his daughter to be unconscious and under treatment. On 20.10.2024 she died. He went to the police station with an application but the police scolded him and threw him out. After it he went there many days his application be taken and appropriate action be taken. The said application was addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi on which an order on 20.11.2024 was passed by the Complaint Cell of the office Jhansi on the basis of which the SHO concerned was directed to take legal action after which the S.P. City, Jhansi passed an order in consonance of it on 20.11.2024 and then the FIR has been lodged.

5. The deceased Priyanka Sen died and her postmortem examination was conducted wherein the doctor found the following injuries on her body: "Surgical stitched wound on frontal region with size 19cm with 18 black threaded sutured. On dissection scalp of head, ecchymosis underneath in scalp of head. On exploration, Linear fracture in occipital region with size 14cm. Dura is missing frontal region. Surgically created bone flap size 6cm x 6cm discovered on frontal region. Further exploration intracranial hemorrhage is present."

6. The cause of death is due to head injury. The doctor opined all injuries are antemortem in nature and are of about 5-7 days old.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is aged about 59 years and is not keeping good health, para 21 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant, para 17 of the affidavit and annexure 8 have been placed before the Court. While placing annexure 7 to the affidavit and para 16 it is submitted that during investigation an application was moved by the applicant and other accused persons supported by affidavit of other villagers on 10.01.2025 who stated that the deceased received injuries due to fall and there was never any demand of dowry. It is submitted that Rakesh the husband of the deceased is in jail, para 18 of the affidavit has been placed. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.01.2025.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. The deceased received serious injuries on her body and was admitted in the hospital who died during treatment. It is submitted that there was serious damage and injury on the head of the deceased. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another : SLP (Criminal) No. 15156 of 2024, decided on 03.03.2025 and while placing para 15 of the same has submitted that the gravity of the offence also needs to be looked into and there is nothing on record that the deceased died a natural death. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. There are allegations of demand of dowry against him. Even previously there was torture and beating of the deceased. The postmortem examination report shows that serious injuries received on her head. No ground is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

10. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Piyush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Ganesh Prasad, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 120 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2), 351(3) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Katera, District Jhansi.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 06.12.2024 by Dayaram Napit against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Priyanka was solemnized with Rakesh on 01.05.2019 in which he had given Rs. 3 lakh cash, a motorcycle, gold jewellery but after marriage her husband Rakesh told her that they had demanded Rs. 5 lakh as dowry but her family members did not give it and gave less dowry and used to torture and assault her. They were counselled many times through people of the society. His daughter was thrown out of the house but after counselling she was sent again but her husband again started demanding dowry and used to assault her and there was a demand of a car, gold chain and Rs. 2 lakh as dowry. On 15.10.2024 they assaulted Priyanka mercilessly and hit her on the head with a rod due to which she became unconscious and was brought to Jhansi. They then informed him that his daughter fell from the roof after which he went to the Trauma Centre and found his daughter to be unconscious and under treatment. On 20.10.2024 she died. He went to the police station with an application but the police scolded him and threw him out. After it he went there many days his application be taken and appropriate action be taken. The said application was addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi on which an order on 20.11.2024 was passed by the Complaint Cell of the office Jhansi on the basis of which the SHO concerned was directed to take legal action after which the S.P. City, Jhansi passed an order in consonance of it on 20.11.2024 and then the FIR has been lodged.

5. The deceased Priyanka Sen died and her postmortem examination was conducted wherein the doctor found the following injuries on her body: "Surgical stitched wound on frontal region with size 19cm with 18 black threaded sutured. On dissection scalp of head, ecchymosis underneath in scalp of head. On exploration, Linear fracture in occipital region with size 14cm. Dura is missing frontal region. Surgically created bone flap size 6cm x 6cm discovered on frontal region. Further exploration intracranial hemorrhage is present."

6. The cause of death is due to head injury. The doctor opined all injuries are antemortem in nature and are of about 5-7 days old.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is aged about 59 years and is not keeping good health, para 21 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant, para 17 of the affidavit and annexure 8 have been placed before the Court. While placing annexure 7 to the affidavit and para 16 it is submitted that during investigation an application was moved by the applicant and other accused persons supported by affidavit of other villagers on 10.01.2025 who stated that the deceased received injuries due to fall and there was never any demand of dowry. It is submitted that Rakesh the husband of the deceased is in jail, para 18 of the affidavit has been placed. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.01.2025.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. The deceased received serious injuries on her body and was admitted in the hospital who died during treatment. It is submitted that there was serious damage and injury on the head of the deceased. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another : SLP (Criminal) No. 15156 of 2024, decided on 03.03.2025 and while placing para 15 of the same has submitted that the gravity of the offence also needs to be looked into and there is nothing on record that the deceased died a natural death. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. There are allegations of demand of dowry against him. Even previously there was torture and beating of the deceased. The postmortem examination report shows that serious injuries received on her head. No ground is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

10. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad